THE NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL PEACE
THE Parliamentary Session will be a very full one ; the programme is already overflowing with Bills and days allotted for various discussions, and everyone seems to be properly excited. But for our part we feel that not one of all these matters compares in importance with what lies outside and beyond them—and that is the need for industrial peace.
There is a stirring of the dry bones in the valley of our trade. One after another promising signs are appear- ing ; but all the time we are haunted by the dread that the slow and belated recovery will be checked if there should be more industrial strife. No one can feel confi- dent that before long there will not be strikes on a large scale, starting in the mines or on the railways. The pessimists even go so far as to say that conflict cannot be avoided. Can nothing really be done by way of preven- tion ? For nothing is more certain than that if there should be another hold-up of industry the good signs will fade out of our sky and we shall slide backwards instead of boldly marching forwards. All classes, of course, will suffer. The employers will talk of bringing the men to reason and the men will talk of beating the employers and destroying capitalism ; but when exhaustion has brought an end to the hostilities everyone will be much worse off, and there will be a longer road than ever back to prosperity.
We have written so often for many months past about the extraordinary prosperity which has been achieved under the capitalistic system in the United States that we do not desire to go over the ground again now. Enough to repeat that American employers and employees grow Irich together, because both sides accept the capitalistic system with good will. High wages, ample leisure and a huge output all co-exist. We are glad to say that, as a result of the admirable Report drawn up by Colonel Willey and Mr. Guy Locock, all newspapers are at last hot on the trail of this success. Our purpose now is to draw attention to the remarkable fact that enlightened thinkers of every school of British political thought have in the past few days been saying exactly the same thing about industry, namely, that high wages cannot possibly be paid on a small output, but that if output can be increased to a point which is easily attainable wages instead of being reduced can be considerably increased. When Unionist speakers and Unionist employers freely make this admission we may fairly say that something has been asserted which would have been stoutly denied fifteen years ago. This is a notable advance. There is agreement among such leaders as the Prime Minister, who has been an employer of labour most of his life, Sir Alfred Mond, another great employer who belongs to the Liberal Party, and Mr. Clynes and Mr. J. H. Thomas, who are evolutionary Socialists. Surely it would be mad not to take occasion by the hand. Are we so inept or so helpless as a nation that we cannot make use of an opportunity when it is flung in our faces ?
There is no doubt about it that what is needed is harder work, and when we speak of harder work we are thinking of employers as well as of employed. We must recapture that magnificent driving spirit which won the 'War. There must also be a readiness for accommodation and concession all round. It is useless for employers to call upon Labour to give up this, that and the other thing if they are not prepared to make reciprocal concessions, even when they sincerely believe that Labour is in the wrong. Take a simple illustration. Mr. Macquisten insists upon reintroducing his Bill for the suppression of the Political Levy in Trade Unions. The correspondence on the subject between him and the Prime Minister which has just been published shows that the Prime Minister is not at all blind to the injustices and futilities which are committed by Trade Unions under the protection of the law, but he thinks that if legislative action should prove to be necessary it ought to come—as it obviously ought in such an important matter—from the Government, and not from a Private Member. Meanwhile, he hopes that Trade Unions will be wise enough to reform them- selves. Mr. Macquisten and those who agree with him, want, on the other hand, to press the matter without regard to the strong feeling in the Trade Unions. They would confidently antagonize the unions in the name of national security. Frankly, we do not like the tone of Mr. Macquisten's letters. We do not disagree with his purpose, but we entirely mistrust his methods. Mr. Baldwin, very rightly in our judgment, says, in effect, that nothing matters so much in the immediate future as keeping the industrial peace.
There is a great deal of talk about " getting together " in industry. Well, why should not something come of it Why should not representatives of the various political parties meet together, unofficially to begin with, to thrash the matter out ? Such unofficial meetings fre- quently lead to action on a much more important plane. It seems clear enough that more Labour leaders than ever before are on the verge of admitting that Trade Union practices which restrict output have been carried to the point of a grotesque pedantry. The employers should admit that on their side they have only too often given Labour just cause for restricting output. The figures in Colonel Willey's survey of what has been done in America, where there is virtually no restriction, are simply overwhelming. Between 1914 and 1923, owing to labour-saving machinery, the number of workers required to turn out a given volume of goods was reduced by 23 per cent., and the mechanical power required for the same volume was reduced by 12 per cent. The aver- age Labour economist here on reading such figures would throw up his hands in horror and say that it meant throw- ing such and such a number of men out of work. In America, however, quite the contrary has happened. The money saved has been put back into business and more labour than ever has been employed with still higher wages.
. Then there is the other example set by America, which we hope will be more widely followed here, though a beginning is already evident, of encouraging the em- ployees to invest in industrial companies on very favour- able terms. The Standard Oil Company lets every worker invest one-fifth of his wages in the Company, and it adds half a dollar to every dollar thus invested. Why should a workman want to strike against such a company ? Of course, he does not. He is a capitalist himself, and lie wants to work with more and more enthusiasm as his stake in the company mounts up in order that his profits may be increased. The company, on its side, can afford to be generous, for it is secure against strikes.
We sincerely trust that the present opportunity will not be thrown away. Some use should certainly be made of the unprecedented degree of agreement revealed in the past few days. A friendly conference composed of a few leading members of the different parties and interests might set a movement going that would ultimately transform the situation.
Previous page
